Problems in American Democracy Part 19

13. How does cooperation teach self-government? (Fay, pages 324-325.)

14. How has cooperation encouraged thrift? (Fay, page 329.)

TOPICS FOR INVESTIGATION AND REPORT

I

1. Make a study of a profit-sharing plan in your locality. (Write to the Bureau of Labor Statistics at your State Capitol, asking for the names and addresses of employers in your locality who have experimented with profit sharing.)

2. Interview, or write to, an employer, explaining the essence of profit sharing, and asking his opinion as to its practicability in his business.

3. Interview, or write to, the officials of a trade union, regarding their att.i.tude toward profit sharing.

4. Write to the Cooperative League of America, 2 West 13th Street, New York City, asking for free literature on cooperation in your section.

If any of the groups of cooperators in your section are found to be close at hand, make a study of a typical cooperative group.

5. Draw up a plan for a cooperative buying club, and discuss with your fellow students the chances for its success. (Consult Harris, _Cooperation, the Hope of the Consumer_, chapter xiv.)

6. Draw up a plan for the cooperative marketing of some agricultural product in your section. Send a description of the plan, giving advantages, etc., to a farm journal in your section. (Consult Powell, _Cooperation in Agriculture>/i>, chapter iv, and Coulter, _Cooperation Among Farmers_.)

II

7. Profit sharing as a method of securing industrial peace. (Burritt, and others, _Profit Sharing_, chapter vii.)

8. Profit sharing as a means of stabilizing labor. (Burritt, and others, _Profit Sharing,_ chapter vi.)

9. Relation of cooperation to advertising. (Harris, _Cooperation, the Hope of the Consumer,_ chapter xix.)

10. Credit cooperation in Germany. (Fay, _Cooperation at Home and Abroad,_ part i, chapter ii.)

11. Cooperation in dairying. (Fay, _Cooperation at Home and Abroad,_ part ii, chapter vi.)

12. Cooperation among New England farmers. (Ford, _Cooperation in New England,_ chapters vi-ix.)

13. Cooperation among immigrants in New England. (Ford, _Cooperation in New England,_ chapter iii.)

14. Cooperation in the fruit industries. (Powell, _Cooperation in Agriculture,_ chapter viii.)

15. The relation of thrift to nation-building. (_Annals,_ vol.

lx.x.xvii, pages 4-9.)

16. The relation of cooperation to socialism. (Fay, _Cooperation at Home and Abroad,_ pages 350-355; Sonnichsen, _Consumers' Cooperation,_ part ii, chapter ii.)

CHAPTER XIII

THE GENERAL NATURE OF SOCIALISM

121. SOCIALISM IS A VAGUE TERM.--It is often said that the term "socialism" is so vague that it is useless to attempt to define it.

The word is used to cover all sorts of schemes of industrial and social reform. Sometimes a person whose viewpoint concerning politics or business has become more liberal appears to himself or to others as a socialist. From the standpoint of many individuals, all those who advocate the extension of government control are socialists. Still others label as socialists all reformers with whose ideas they are not in accord. It very often happens that persons who pa.s.s in the community for socialists are not recognized as such by the official socialist parties. Indeed, certain official socialist groups go so far as to declare that other official socialist groups are "not really socialists," either in thought or in action.

122. A DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM.--In spite of this confusion it is possible to formulate a rather precise definition of socialism.

Leaving until later the distinction between the chief socialist groups, we may say that the following definition covers all who are strictly socialists: Socialism is an economic theory which aims to abolish the capitalistic system, and to subst.i.tute for it "a system of collective owners.h.i.+p and democratic management of the socially necessary means of production and distribution." In rather more simple language, socialism intends that all income-producing property shall be owned and directed by the state. The state is to own and operate land, factories, workshops, railroads, and all other means of production. Private property and the compet.i.tive system are to be abolished. [Footnote: Socialism does not seek to abolish the private owners.h.i.+p of food, clothing, and other forms of consumers' goods, yet both socialists and non-socialists accept the unqualified statement that "socialism seeks to abolish private property." because it is the private owners.h.i.+p of producers' goods rather than of consumers' goods, which const.i.tutes a cornerstone of the capitalistic system.] All business is to be conducted by the government, and all persons are to be employees of the government. The distribution of wealth is to be directed by the government.

123. RELATION OF SOCIALISM TO OTHER RADICAL THEORIES.--The terms "communism" and "socialism" call for careful distinction. What is now known as socialism was formerly known as communism. For example, Karl Marx, the founder of modern socialism, called himself a communist. His followers later abandoned the name, and began calling themselves socialists. Still later, during the World War, a group of Russian socialists, popularly known as the bolshevists, revived the term communist in the sense used by Marx. Strictly speaking, however, communism is generally thought of to-day as a type of small community organization in which all wealth, including both the instruments of production and consumers' goods, is owned by the community. Socialism, on the other hand, proposes that the state own and operate only the instruments of production, leaving food, clothing, and other consumers' goods to be owned and enjoyed by individuals.

Socialism is often thought of in connection with the doctrine of anarchy. Anarchism and socialism are alike in that both object to one man having authority over another. Anarchism agrees with socialism that capitalism is bad because it gives the employer power over the laborer. But at this point the two theories begin sharply to diverge.

Socialism desires to abolish private property and to concentrate all authority in the hands of the state. The anarchist maintains that this is simply a transference of authority, and declares that authority in any form is an evil. Thus where socialism seeks to enlarge the powers of the state, anarchism objects to the existence of any governmental authority whatsoever.

In addition to communism and anarchism, there are a number of interesting theories that are more or less closely a.s.sociated with the socialist movement. These will not be discussed here, for two reasons: first, an adequate treatment of them would permit the problem of industrial reform to take up a disproportionate share of our time; second, many of these theories, while interesting, are relatively unimportant, from the standpoint of American democracy at least. We may, therefore, confine ourselves to socialism proper, as defined in Section 122.

124. KARL MARX AND HIS INFLUENCE.--The germ of socialism can be traced back as far as Plato, but the modern movement takes its main impetus from the teachings of Karl Marx. Karl Marx was a German Jew, who lived between 1818 and 1883. Marx early became known for his radical views on political and economic subjects. In 1848, he published, in collaboration with Frederick Engels, the well-known Communist Manifesto. The Manifesto, which has been called the "birth-cry of modern socialism," gives in concise form the essence of the socialist doctrine. In 1864 Marx helped organize the "International," a federation of radical thinkers, with affiliations in the different countries of Europe. In 1867 he published the first volume of his famous work, _Capital_, which elaborated the views set forth in the Manifesto, and which has since been adopted as the "Bible of Socialism." Due to the great influence which Marx has exerted upon socialist doctrine, he may justly be called the founder and inspiration of modern socialism.

125. THE SOCIALIST INDICTMENT.--The claims of socialism, as formulated by Marx and elaborated by his followers, const.i.tute a serious indictment of present-day society. Socialists point out, for example, that the capitalistic system has numerous faults. They call attention to the fact that capitalism involves enormous wastes in materials and men; they show that luxurious and injurious goods are produced; and they maintain that in the past natural resources have often been monopolized by a few. They believe the system of private property to be unjust, and declare that free compet.i.tion involves needless duplication of effort. At the present time, it is contended, all the good things of life go to a few, while the ma.s.ses remain in poverty and misery. Socialists declare that the fruits of capitalism are unemployment, industrial accidents, crime, vice, poverty, disease, and premature death. These charges are serious, and Chapter XVI will be devoted to their critical examination. In this chapter we are concerned chiefly with an exposition of the socialist doctrine.

126. ECONOMIC INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY.--Formerly a great principle of socialism was the claim that all history has been determined by economic forces. According to this view, our whole social and political life, including our basic ideas concerning religion, art, science, and government, are only the reflected result of economic forces. History, Marx contended, is the record of how one cla.s.s has gained wealth and power at the expense of another cla.s.s. The present state of society, he a.s.serted, is the result of the exploitation of the ma.s.ses by a few.

With this principle we need not further concern ourselves. It is an academic appendage to the socialist doctrine, and at the present time is not stressed by socialists. The majority of socialists now concede that while economic forces have been important in history, social, religious, and political forces are also important. In view of this admission, the chief importance of the doctrine of the economic interpretation of history is its theoretical connection with the two great cornerstones of socialism: the theory of surplus value, and the theory of cla.s.s struggle.

127. THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE.--Marx claimed that practically all wealth has been created by the laborers alone, and that all persons other than laborers are parasites. To those who have carefully studied Chapter VIII the error of this claim must appear self-evident, nevertheless, this concept of value is the basis of all socialist attacks upon government and industry. Marx developed this theory as follows:

The value of an article is determined solely by the amount of labor expended upon its production. But although the laborer creates all wealth, the capitalist is enabled, by virtue of his monopolistic control over the instruments of production, to prevent this wealth from going entirely to the laborer. [Footnote: By "capitalists"

socialism means not only individuals with money to loan, but "employers" in general, whether middlemen, entrepreneurs, or true capitalists. ] Socialism declares that the capitalist holds the laborer in virtual slavery, the laborer receiving only enough of the wealth created by him to enable him to keep alive, while the surplus of this wealth goes to the capitalist. The capitalist is thus a parasite who performs no useful task, but robs the laborers of the fruits of their industry. Marx did not regard profits as reward for business enterprise, but called them "plunder." Capitalism, according to this view, is a system of theft, involving "misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, and exploitation."

128. CLa.s.s STRUGGLE.--Marx declared that the capitalistic system was doomed to destruction. He maintained that as time went on, wealth would tend to concentrate more and more in the hands of the capitalist or employing cla.s.s. Trusts and monopolies would become more common, and gradually capitalism would become so unwieldy and so unworkable a mechanism that it would finally fall to pieces of its own weight.

Crises, panics, and trade depressions were supposed to be indications of this inevitable disaster.

The tendency for wealth to concentrate in the hands of a few was to be accompanied by the growing poverty of the ma.s.ses. Marx believed that the middle cla.s.ses would eventually disappear, leaving only the wealthy employers and the miserable laborers. The individuals comprising these two cla.s.ses would steadily draw apart into two great armies which were destined to battle to the death. Socialism denies that employers and laborers have anything in common, and insists that between these two groups a struggle must go on until the employing cla.s.s is abolished.

129. WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE AIM OF SOCIALISM?--Nothing could here be more important than to know the ultimate aim of socialism, nevertheless, there is among socialists no agreement as to the framework of the system which they expect to subst.i.tute for capitalism. All socialists desire collective owners.h.i.+p and direction of the instruments of production, but beyond this there is practically nothing in the way of a constructive socialist program. Generally, it is declared that when capitalism has been abolished, the working cla.s.ses will organize industry on the basis of communal owners.h.i.+p. In the socialist commonwealth there is to be no cla.s.s struggle, for the reason that there are to be no cla.s.ses. There is to be a just distribution of wealth, together with an abolition of poverty, unemployment, and all forms of social injustice. But as to how this is to be accomplished we have no proof. The so-called constructive program of socialism is not so much a definite agreement as to aims and methods, as it is a confused and disordered expression of the att.i.tude of different socialist groups toward capitalism. Indeed, when socialists are asked to advance a concrete and definitely constructive program, the reply is often made that the advent of socialism is so far distant that the constructive side of its program is of no immediate consequence.

130. NEGATIVE CHARACTER OF SOCIALISM.--But although the constructive program of socialism is vague and unreal, its destructive or negative program is definite and very real. Socialism is opposed to government as it exists to-day, and to that extent, it disapproves of the Const.i.tution of the United States. The capitalistic system is to be destroyed. The inst.i.tution of private property is to be abolished.

Free compet.i.tion and private initiative are to be abolished or greatly restricted. All business is to be under the thumb of the government.

Personal liberty is to be narrowed down. Some socialists even go so far as to declare war upon the family and the church, but though a number of socialist leaders favor the abolition of the inst.i.tution of marriage, and are professed atheists, it should be borne in mind that the great majority of socialists are not openly hostile to the home and the church. Indeed, the average socialist is probably as friendly to these inst.i.tutions as is the average non-socialist.

131. SOCIALIST ATt.i.tUTE TOWARD VIOLENCE.--It is important to understand the methods of socialism. Throughout the greater part of his life, Karl Marx openly advocated violence and revolution as a means of securing the downfall of capitalism. Socialists, says the Communist Manifesto, "disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." Toward the end of his life, Marx changed this view somewhat, and apparently came to believe that the overthrow of the capitalistic system might come gradually and without bloodshed. In accordance with this later view, there is to-day a considerable socialist group which disavows violence. Members of this group are known as political socialists.

On the other hand, many socialists cling to Marx's earlier insistence upon violence and bloodshed as a means of attaining socialist ends.

Members of the latter cla.s.s are known as militant socialists, as opposed to those who disavow violence and rely chiefly upon political weapons. The two best-known groups of militant socialists are the Industrial Workers of the World and the Russian bolshevists.

132. POLITICAL SOCIALISM.--Many political socialists are personally so mild and agreeable that the thought of unlawful action would never be a.s.sociated with them. The political socialist relies chiefly upon the growing political power of the working cla.s.s to effect the abolition of capitalism. This emphasis upon political weapons has been particularly noticeable among socialists living in democratic countries where the franchise is widely extended, and where the will of the people is reflected through the action of their chosen representatives. The political socialist makes a large use of propaganda. He tries to stir up the workingman, to create in him a feeling of solidarity with his fellow workmen, and to incite a feeling of antipathy toward, and dislike for, the employing cla.s.s. The political socialist emphasizes or exaggerates the undesirable side of the laborer's life, and endeavors by promises of an industrial millennium to rouse him to political action. "Workingmen of the world, unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains," is the slogan of the political socialist.

133. ALL SOCIALIST TEACHINGS TEND TOWARD VIOLENCE.--Though large numbers of political socialists are peaceful and responsible citizens, it should be noted that all socialist teachings tend to result in violence. The insistence of socialism upon the cla.s.s struggle, the deliberate encouragement of industrial ill-will and the general policy of obstructing the activities of government, all lead inevitably to violence. Strikes involving bloodshed have in many instances been traced to the teachings of political socialism. During the World War, many political socialists in the United States supported our cause, but others of this group opposed the selective draft, attempted to demoralize our military forces, and impeded the conduct of the war by giving aid and succor to German agents. By a series of slight steps, political socialism, theoretically law-abiding and harmless, may drift into treasonable and revolutionary acts. The difference between political and militant socialism is thus one of degree only.